Professional Documents
Culture Documents
;fManila ~
PUBLIC I FORMATION OFFICE
1AN 1 R ?n1Q D
SECOND DIVISION
x---------------------------------
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
See Notice of Appeal dated October 28, 2015; rollo, pp. 13-14.
Id. at 2-12. Penned by Associate Justice Francsico P. Acosta with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam
(now a member of the Court) and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
CA rollo, pp. 9-16. Penned by Judge Jose Godofredo M. Naui.
4
Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7' 2002.
I
Decision 2 G.R. No. 225741
The Facts
Records, p. i.
See rollo, pp. 3-5. See also Chemistry Report No. D-32-2012 dated August 2, 2012; records, p. 25.
Also referred to as Bautista's mother in the Appellant's Brief; see CA ro/lo, p. 53.
Rollo, p. 5.
9
CA Rollo, pp. 9-16.
10
Id. at 16.
11
See id. at 14-15.
12
See Notice of Appeal dated December 9, 2013; id. at 17-18.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 225741
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly
upheld accused-appellants' conviction for the crime charged.
13
Rollo, pp. 2-12.
14
Id. at 11.
15
See id. at 8-11.
16
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment; while the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11,
Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a
prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug. (See People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018; People
v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383, March 7, 2018; People v. Magsano, G.R. No. 231050, February 28,
2018; People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018; People v. Miranda, G.R. No.
229671, January 31, 2018; and People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018; all cases
citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 [2015] and People v. Bio, 753 Phil.730, 736 [2015]).
17
See People v. Crispo, id.; People v. Sanchez, id.; People v. Magsano, id.; People v. Manansala, id.;
People v. Miranda, id.; and People v. Mamangon, id. See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601
(2014).
18
See People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024,
1039-1040 (2012).
)
Decision 4 G.R. No. 225741
evidence of the crime. 19 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law
requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of
the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of
the same. In this regard, case law recognizes that "marking upon immediate
confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or
office of the apprehending team." 20 Hence, the failure to immediately mark
the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible
in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of
marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is
sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody. 21
The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be
done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were
seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses,
namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 22 a
representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public
official; 23 or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an
elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service OR the media. 24 The law requires the presence of these witnesses
primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove
any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 25
19
See People v. Ano, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018; People v. Crispo, supra note 16; People v.
Sanchez, supra note 16; People v. Magsano, supra note 16; People v. Manansala, supra note 16;
People v. Miranda, supra note 16; and People v. Mamangon, supra note 16. See also People v. Viterbo,
supra note 17.
20
People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015), citing lmson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 270-271
(2011 ). See also People v. Ocfemia, 718 Phil. 330, 348 (2013), citing People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil.
520, 532 (2009).
21
See People v. Tumulak, 791 Phil. 148, 160-161 (2016); and People v. Rollo, 757 Phil. 346, 357 (2015).
22
Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT No. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TI-IE
'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,"' approved on July 15, 2014.
23
Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
24
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.
25
See People v. Miranda, supra note 16. See also People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
26
See People v. Miranda, id. See also People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, 820
SCRA 204, 215, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 18, at 1038.
27
See People v. Segundo, G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017, citing People v. Umipang, id.
28
See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
~I
Decision 5 G.R. No. 225741
custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution
satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-
compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved. 29 The foregoing is based on the saving clause found
in Section 21 (a), 30 Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640. 31 It
should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the
prosecution must duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, 32
and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact,
because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even
exist. 33
29
See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (20 l 0).
30
Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 pertinently states: "Provided, further, that non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."
31
Section 1 of RA 10640 pertinently states: "Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures and custody over said items."
32
People v. Almorfe, supra note 29.
33
People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
34
See People v. Manansala, supra note 16.
35
See People v. Gamboa, supra note 18, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 18, at I 053.
36
See People v. Crispo, supra note I 6.
37
Supra note 16.
_I
Decision 6 G.R. No. 225741
the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further
review." 38
SO ORDERED.
hll f).Jv,J/
ESTELA M~·HERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
38
See id.
39
Records,p.10.
40
Records, pp. 111-115.
41
Records, p. 112.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 225741
WE CONCUR:
CR;:.
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANDREJ{;d{tEYES, JR.
Assobi;/k Justice
ATTEST AT ION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION